# Rubio won't back his own immigration bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 5, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242 "2013-06-05T21:24:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/201 "2013-06-17T17:57:50Z")
He’s just trying to buy off Sheriff Arapaio, who’s got the goods on his birth certificate from his crack team of investigators. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/202 "2013-06-17T21:57:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This administration has deported more undocumented immigrants than any other, in both relative and absolute terms. Is that political? Absolutely. They did it to build support for immigration reform in Obama’s first two years. Once the President started hearing it from Latino groups who he needed to get reelected, and once it was clear he wasn’t going to be able to do immigration reform, he shifted policy to stop deportations of non-criminals. Something which it is not clear he’s allowed to do(a lower court ruled that he could not do that), and further, a violation of his oath of office. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/203 "2013-06-17T22:07:20Z")
[ICE removal statistics.](http://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/) > [@](#): > > U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has adopted common sense policies that ensure our immigration laws are enforced in a way that best enhances public safety, border security and the integrity of the immigration system. As part of this approach, ICE has adopted clear priorities that call for the agency’s enforcement resources to be focused on the identification and removal of those that have broken criminal laws, recently crossed our border, repeatedly violated immigration law or are fugitives from immigration court. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/204 "2013-06-17T22:13:50Z")
As your link shows, if you come here illegally and otherwise keep your nose clean, your chances of being deported are about as likely as getting busted downloading music. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/205 "2013-06-17T22:52:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Absolutely. They did it to build support for immigration reform in Obama’s first two years. Once the President started hearing it from Latino groups who he needed to get reelected, and once it was clear he wasn’t going to be able to do immigration reform, he shifted policy to stop deportations of non-criminals. Something which it is not clear he’s allowed to do(a lower court ruled that he could not do that), and further, a violation of his oath of office. And that is iffinitis aguda, in reality it has to go higher than the state level to make it interesting to sources other than just the extreme right wing ones. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/206 "2013-06-17T23:27:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As your link shows, if you come here illegally and otherwise keep your nose clean, your chances of being deported are about as likely as getting busted downloading music. And you have a problem with that? ICE is more efficient in using it’s resources, budget goes down, Repubs happy. Undocumented laborers stay in the country providing an easily exploited, cheap source of labor, Repubs happy. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/207 "2013-06-17T23:37:01Z")
Adaher, please answer my question in post #199. I really want to know ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/208 "2013-06-18T15:53:20Z")
Rubio’s terrible mistake was thinking the tea partiers could be convinced to accept any compromise at all. He thought being “one of them” would allow him to make the immigration bill palatable, instead the moment he didn’t toe the tea party line he ceased being one of them. Any effort spent convincing the tea party to support anything besides far right wing policies is wasted effort, the only immigration bill they will accept involves a game thrones style wall on the Mexican border and full prosecution/deportation of current illegals. If this bill is going to pass the house it will not be based around any amendments they pass or fail to pass, it will based entirely on whether Boehner is willing to break the Hastert rule once again possibly sinking his career. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/209 "2013-06-18T16:23:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I think the racist postion would be enforcement ONLY, which if you looked deep in the souls of Tea Party types is what they really want. > > If enforcement is a joke, it’s somewhat less of a joke under Obama with sharp increases in deportation since he’s been in office. From your own words you would seem to believe that enforcement of existing laws is racism. Bizarre. Soul Searching indeed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/210 "2013-06-18T16:29:06Z")
If racism is codified into law, that is not an improvement. Enforcing racist laws is not a good thing. Let us know if there’s any part of this you don’t understand, we are here to help. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/211 "2013-06-18T21:13:32Z")
If enforcement is racist, then Democrats should support open borders loudly and proudly. I agree that immigration enforcement can be an awful thing, that’s why even 'self-deportation" was politically toxic to talk about. But what is self-deportation? It’s simply obeying the law! If the law is that awful that we can’t even imagine people obeying it, then it shouldn’t exist. I support rule of law. I support democracy. Personally, I’d support open borders legislation. What I won’t support is an attempt to get open borders through deception of the public. Part of being a sovereign nation is getting to decide who and how many people may enter your country. The American public right now does not support open borders, or even a particularly liberal immigration policy. Heck, much of the Democratic coalition doesn’t support that. So let’s stop playing games and institute the enforcement policy the public demands. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/212 "2013-06-18T21:24:06Z")
Let’s start with you defining what a “liberal immigration policy” means. Then maybe we can have a look at the question of whether or not the American public supports such a thing. Right now, all we have is your assurance that whatever it is, the American public does not support it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/213 "2013-06-18T21:46:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If enforcement is racist, then Democrats should support open borders loudly and proudly. > > I agree that immigration enforcement can be an awful thing, that’s why even 'self-deportation" was politically toxic to talk about. But what is self-deportation? It’s simply obeying the law! If the law is that awful that we can’t even imagine people obeying it, then it shouldn’t exist. > > I support rule of law. I support democracy. Personally, I’d support open borders legislation. What I won’t support is an attempt to get open borders through deception of the public. Part of being a sovereign nation is getting to decide who and how many people may enter your country. The American public right now does not support open borders, or even a particularly liberal immigration policy. Heck, much of the Democratic coalition doesn’t support that. So let’s stop playing games and institute the enforcement policy the public demands. Can you respond to [Post #199?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16387485&postcount=199) ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/214 "2013-06-18T21:59:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If enforcement is racist, then Democrats should support open borders loudly and proudly. First off, **elucidator** didn’t say “enforcement” was racist, he said that “Enforcing racist laws is not a good thing.” There are plenty of enforcement measures that Democrats endorse–many of them are in the bill. There are others (supported by Republicans) that Democrats in general don’t support–some no doubt because they view these measures as unfair or racist. Failing to accept these is not at all equivalent to secretly advocating open borders; the argument so obviously reductionist that a 3rd grader would laugh at it. Second, your whole argument seems to be that no matter what enforcement measure the Democrats agree to, they are not to be trusted unless and until the administration can prove that the measures will be 100% enforced. While the standard itself is ridiculous (try arguing to the traffic court that the officer who issued your speeding ticket is untrustworthy because his organization doesn’t catch every speeder), the key to this argument is the implicit assumption that this administration is not to be trusted. That political believe pretty much derails any fact-based argument being made…which is kinda the point of this thread: Republicans can’t really support meaningful immigration reform because it would offend the political sensibilities of a base that doesn’t want Obama to “score a win”. > [@elucidator](#): > > Let’s start with you defining what a “liberal immigration policy” means. Then maybe we can have a look at the question of whether or not the American public supports such a thing. Right now, all we have is your assurance that whatever it is, the American public does not support it. I’d love to hear the answer to this as well, but as it would require actually pinning down what would be acceptable in a way that doesn’t depend on political party, I’m not holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/215 "2013-06-19T09:17:19Z")
If we agree that enforcement of the laws that exist and the enhanced enforcement in the bill is also not racist, then we have no problem. The problem comes in actually enforcing. The tools given to the government in the reform bill are very effective if used. An entry/exit system should mean a near 100% rate of deportations of people who overstay visas. The border control measures should sharply cut down on illegal entries. And with a small illegal population left over after reform, we can pretty much deport all who don’t qualify for legalization. Now this is what the bill says. This is far harsher enforcement than we’ve ever had before. So it’s no wonder that conservatives are skeptical that it will actually be done. Does everyone here on this board endorse those harsher enforcement measures? Or is there an assumption that they won’t actually be used? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/216 "2013-06-19T09:18:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Really curious about this. Why do you think the administration, this or any other one, would let in gang members and criminals? How does that help them? What elected official counts gang members and felons as their constituency and for what reason? There are A LOT of illegal immigrants with criminal records. If the administration is determined to legalize the vast majority of them, then they will have to make a lot of exceptions. Then there’s the fact that many resorted to identify theft or forged documents to get jobs. That’s a felony too. As I said, the law says immigrants have to have clean records, but most of them don’t, so it’s a way to deceive the public. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/217 "2013-06-19T09:23:22Z")
In any case, it looks like the REpublicans will get what they want on enforcement: s of now, it would tighten border security requirements primarily by having Congress dictate exactly how secure the border must be before immigrants in the United States illegally can begin the process of gaining citizenship. By shifting that responsibility to Congress and away from the executive branch, negotiators hope to pick up support from Republican senators who are reluctant to leave that determination to the administration. 5 things to know about immigration reform The emerging deal also would include several other Republican priorities related to entry and exit biometrics, the E-Verify workplace verification program, and rules that would prevent immigrants from getting public benefits. “Corker and I are trying to get enough of these together so you can get a meaningful bipartisan group on the bill,” explained Hoeven, who said he hoped to introduce the proposal as early as Wednesday. > **[Senate negotiators seek new compromise on immigration | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/18/politics/boehner-immigration-reform/index.html)** > > House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday, “I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have majority support of Republicans.” Further, with support for the bill falling like a rock, Reid is now in a big rush: > **[Support falling in polls, Harry Reid announces rush to pass immigration bill](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/support-falling-in-polls-harry-reid-announces-rush-to-pass-immigration-bill)** > > With a new poll showing falling support for the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced an accelerated schedule in which the Senate would take a final, up-or-down vote on passing the bill... Perhaps more ominously, the poll found strong support for prioritizing border security above a path to citizenship for currently-illegal immigrants. Independents favor security before a path by a two-to-one margin, and Republicans support it by a three-to-one margin. Democrats favored a path to citizenship over security, but by the barest of margins, 50 percent to 49 percent. Overall, CNN found that 62 percent of the public favors prioritizing security before a path to citizenship, while 36 percent favored a path over security. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/218 "2013-06-19T10:54:35Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/219 "2013-06-19T17:52:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Perhaps more ominously, the poll found strong support for prioritizing border security above a path to citizenship for currently-illegal immigrants. Independents favor security before a path by a two-to-one margin, and Republicans support it by a three-to-one margin. Democrats favored a path to citizenship over security, but by the barest of margins, 50 percent to 49 percent. Overall, CNN found that 62 percent of the public favors prioritizing security before a path to citizenship, while 36 percent favored a path over security. Recently CNN is not looking as doing a great job in polling lately, other polls are not so ominous. [http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/poll-huge-support-for-immigration-reform-92701.html#ixzz2WgZLRd7W](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/poll-huge-support-for-immigration-reform-92701.html#ixzz2WgZLRd7W) > [@](#): > > Presented with that favorable description of the legislation, voters responded warmly, with between 61 and 78 percent in each state expressing support. > > Those are probably best-case numbers for immigration reform advocates. The reform proposals currently under consideration have not yet been picked apart in the Senate and House legislative processes. When politicians debate immigration reform before the voters next year, they won’t be presenting such a plainly one-sided view of the issue. > > But at this point, in states represented by key advocates of immigration reform, both the Gang of Eight proposal and a pathway to citizenship earn robust support, as described. > > In Florida, where GOP Sen. Marco Rubio has been one of the staunchest supporters of reform legislation, 72 percent of voters said they support the legislation (including 45 percent who strongly support it) and 71 percent backed the pathway to citizenship. > > In South Carolina, home to reform-boosting Republican Lindsey Graham, those numbers were only a bit lower: 62 percent who support the Gang of Eight bill and 60 percent who backed the pathway to citizenship. > > And in Texas, the rapidly changing but still-conservative state with two senators who have resisted reform – Ted Cruz and John Cornyn – 67 percent said they could support the reform bill as described, with 72 percent backing a pathway to citizenship. > > The average support for the “Gang of Eight” legislation was just under 68 percent, according to the pollsters. > > McCleary and Jensen write in their memo: “The bipartisan immigration reform package represents a rare opportunity to cast an affirmative vote for major legislation that enjoys overwhelming support from voters of all stripes.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/220 "2013-06-19T18:45:01Z")
68%! That’s totally popular, insanely popular, gigantically popular! Probably those polls are skewed, though, since the conservatives enjoy a 40% majority in this center-right nation… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242.md?page=12)